Chemical and pharmaceutical companies protect their investment in research and development and the future of the businesses by securing patents on the inventions. Patents assist you to resist competition. Success or failure of the company often depends on the strength of the patent as well as the longer the word of the patent, the greater will be its value. A How To Pitch An Idea To A Company is one that defines your invention broadly and but at the same time builds in fallback narrow invention.
The Usa Patent and Trademark Office receives thousands and thousands of patent applications every year. In fact, the Patent Office has proposed new patent rules to ease the Examiner workload. Based on one proposed rule, if a patent application is rejected, so that you can present your case again, the patent applicant will likely be restricted to filing one ask for continued examination (or RCE). In light of the new rule, unless the patent applicant masters the complexities of patent law, the applicant might get a weak patent instead of a strong one.
Imagine you might have filed a patent application in which you have defined your invention broadly along with narrowly in ten succinct sentences in what are known as patent claims. These patent claims will likely be numbered 1 through 10. Typically claim 1 will represent the invention in the broadest scope, and the higher numbered claims represent fallback narrow inventions. Inside our hypothetical, claims 2 to 10 will refer returning to claim 1. Thus, claim 2 refers to claim 1. Claim 4 refers back to claim 3, which often refers returning to claim 2. Claim 5 refers back to claim 1 or claim 4. In this particular example, say claim 5 refers to claim 1. Take into account that the better quantity of fallback claims you may have, you have a better probability of winning the lawsuit in case your competitor challenges your patent.
Now imagine that the Examiner rejects the patent, as it often happens, stating that the invention will not be new or is only a minor modification of what is well known already. You, as patent applicant, are able to answer the Examiner. You present arguments stating why the invention is new and never obvious and why you need to granted Inventhelp Caveman. The Examiner rejects your argument. Now, to go on your effort to acquire a patent, you intend to present new arguments. To do this, you may have to file an RCE (as well as the fee) combined with the new arguments.
The Examiner takes it up again. Now, the Examiner softens a little and says, in a non-final rejection, that invention of claims 4 to 10 could be allowable being a patent should you rewrite claim 4 with no reference to claim 1, but consistently reject the broader invention of claims 1, 2, and 3. Now you have a choice of taking what the Examiner gave you, that is, claims 4 to 10 or alternatively, argue even more. You decide to argue. The Examiner finally rejected your application, repeating what he explained before, that is certainly, claim 4 onwards would be allowable if you rewrite it as indicated before. Now, the options you may have are very limited. It is possible to rewrite claim 4 because the Examiner indicated, as new claim 1, and get a patent with new claim 1. However, you will struggle to obtain a patent with claims 5 to 10.
The Examiner would refuse to grant claim five to ten while he will say that claim 5 now has been changed in their scope even if you did not alter the wording in the claim. The Examiner will debate that original claim 5 referred back to original claim 1. Now, claim 5 refers to new claim 1, that is of the different scope. The Examiner would indicate that, as the scope in the claim has changed, he would need to carry out further search and examination on claims 5 to 10. He would state that the patent law would not allow him to do so since iqpzlk rejection has become made final already. The only method to get the Examiner moving on this would be in the event you could file an RCE. However, you might have already utilized your RCE option. You are unable to file another RCE now, and therefore, you are unable to get claims 5-10. You will definitely get a patent with just one claim. If an infringer challenges your patent, and proves that the only claim is invalid, New Inventions could be trashed.
If you had rewritten claim 4 (as new claim 1) when responding to the non-final rejection, as opposed to when responding to the ultimate rejection as you did, patent law would have allowed the Examiner to handle further explore claims five to ten, and the probability of getting those claims could have been favorable. Should you have had fallback position of claims 5 to 10 also, you will possess a greater possibility of winning the truth.